NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8316009" data-attributes="member: 82106">What would happen if there was a disagreement on employment of the rules though? I mean, most editions of D&D (you didn't really specify one) don't really state much in the way of principles of play beyond "if there's a choice, it is up to the DM" basically. You can certainly create some rules around that (handing around a baton for example that gives rule 0 authority until you use it, then you pass it left for instance). I think you may run into that sort of need with any game you are 'hacking on' of course, D&D isn't atypical in that sense.However, in at least a lot of editions, you would be ignoring quite a lot of rules, and hacking a lot of subsystems (there are a lot of places in 1e for instance where Gygax advocates/dictates, depending on his mood, hidden checks for instance). The DM role in that game is very pervasive! 5e is a bit of a different case in that you have mostly unified mechanics at the core, but the fundamental issue still bites, which is DM authority pervades the process of play so thoroughly that the game is extremely sensitive to inconsistency. That is, I am sure you worked out your co-DMing activity without much problem. I don't think it is a replicable process though. If you took 100 tables and did this experiment at them, how many would run into enough issues to give it up? If you started with a PbtA core, I think an equal amount of 'hacking' would get you to a place where the game was fully playable, though I certainly would want to do some experiments to see what worked best.</blockquote>

Verification